US TAX COURT 
                                                                   WASHINGTON DC
                                                                   
 
Scott H.                           )							
           Petitioner              )           DOCKET #83xxx
                                   )
     v.                            )           Motion for Continuance
                                   )
Commissioner Internal Revenue      )
            Respondent.            )
            

Petitioner, Scott H., hereby files his opposition to the government’s Motion for Penalties under IRC §6673 dated January 8, 2008, based upon the following reasons:

1. Petitioner filed a valid and acceptable petition to the tax court in this case on August 1, 2006 and his Supplement to Petition/Amended Petition on April 10, 2006 to personalize his generic petition. The Petition and the Supplement meet all the requirements of the law and include no arguments classified by the IRS/Tax Court as frivolous.

District Counsel’s accusations of frivolous or groundless issues are false. For making false accusations against a pro se litigant, the Commissioner should be penalized under IRC §6673.

2. The Motion for Penalties is based upon alleged frivolous positions in response to a 30 day letter dated July 28, 2004. Taxpayer is also accused of filing some sort of notice dated August 13, 2004, which District Counsel claims consisted of “entirely of frivolous demands and arguments.”

Nothing in theses two papers have anything to do with this case. The Commissioner should be penalized for even bringing this up.

3. Taxpayer filed his CDPH request timely but the original request allegedly contained arguments classified the by the IRS as frivolous. However Petitioner recalled that request form in his recall letter dated August 10, 2005 and substituted a new one which contained arguments always classified as valid by the IRS and Tax Court.

The recall letter was based upon instructions from the IRS and others. The recall letter was a result of IRS instructions and since he complied with their instructions, the recall letter must be accepted by the tax service.

4. No where has Petitioner asserted frivolous arguments in his pleadings and he has only raised non-frivolous challenges to the appropriateness of the levy.

5. On May 11, 2006 Counsel for Respondent threatened Petitioner with a motion for Summary Judgment and motion for Penalty. This letter was based upon ancient and non-relevant letters to the IRS from the taxpayer, plus the original CDPH request which had been withdrawn, cancelled and recalled. The original collection hearing request form is no longer part of this case as it has been replaced by a new one which is totally acceptable.

District Counsel is barking up the wrong tree. His accusations are based upon documents that are not part of this case. District Counsel’s conduct in this case is unprofessional.

6. In conclusion, penalties should not lay against taxpayer because the Commissioner has no evidence, no proof and no documents of any pleading in this case by Petitioner which contain any frivolous or groundless issues except an ancient form that was withdrawn.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify on this date that a copy this pleading was sent properly to opposing counsel.

________________________
Scott H.
Ashville, NC 28803-10116

Date:______________________